I think Andrew hit one of those moments where he forgot what the name of his website is and looked for the flaws rather than the entertainment in the flaws.

Well, I had a hard time deciding on one or two slimes for this one, and actually made a change about 5 minutes after posting the update to downgrade it from two to a single drop (and I'm still not sure that's what I want). For me, the quirkiness did not quite work. It was always just barely off in some way. Things seemed to happen because the story needed them to happen to continue to the next scene. The best part about James Earl Jones was his putting down Swarma, which was also the best character interaction in the script. Sharon Stones character was pretty much wasted. Swarma did little more than annoy me. Above all, the end was the weakest part (much like the first).

I did my best to make the film entertain me; it is supposed to be a bit different than that.

The movie was entertaining for you, but not for me. Get over it. Neither of us are wrong. As other readers add comments we will find out whether the movie worked or failed for other viewers.

Note for anyone not a regular: Menard tries to be abrasive, and I'm just calling him on it.

What can I say? Read the books instead. All by H. Rider Haggard. Of course, there is "King Solomon's Mine," then there is the lesser known, which actually I like better, "Allan Quaterman," which is the sequel to "King Solomon's Mine," and the one upon which this film is based.

As for the films, the two far superior films to the 1985 version of "King Solomon's Mines" are the 1937 and the 1950 versions.

As for this one, there is a slightly better version (IMHO) called "King Solomon's Treasure," which came out in 1977, but is based on "Alan Quatermain."

Then there is the author's "She," which I have always found unreadable, but which was made into a film in 1965, and which stars Peter Cushing, Bernard Cribbins, John Richardson, Christopher Lee, and Ursula Andress. Did I mention Ursual Andress?